I don't think you understand how the Constitution works if you don't realize the difference between the government forcing you to pay to exercise a right and private citizens forcing you to pay for products they've made.

So explain to me the difference between goods and services here, if you're a private citizen forcing people to pay for those services in the same vein that someone forces people to pay for their goods.

If the government is not supplying free weapons, ammunition and training - hey Military folks, respect to you by the way - and requires remuneration for goods that are constitutionally protected, by what backassward logic do you somehow differentiate that from requisite training?

Your statement was that you can't make someone pay to exercise a right, yet there is some kind of transaction required here.

Maybe if we want to simplify the whole thing we can just place regulations and bans on anything that isn't homemade and self-taught. We have a nice constitutionally protected right without any of that messy Talking About Things. Now we can say hooray police state!

What we have got here is a failure to communicate, mostly your HS government teacher apparently. Private transactions are not equal to government action. Just stop this trolling argument. You're embarrassing yourself.

StaleCoffee:So explain to me the difference between goods and services here, if you're a private citizen forcing people to pay for those services in the same vein that someone forces people to pay for their goods.

If the government is not supplying free weapons, ammunition and training - hey Military folks, respect to you by the way - and requires remuneration for goods that are constitutionally protected, by what backassward logic do you somehow differentiate that from requisite training?

Okay, let me splain this to you real slow.... If the government requires you to pay for something to exercise a right, that's unconstitutional. See "Poll Tax". If a private citizen requires you to pay for something, it doesn't matter because the Constitution is does not restrict the people, nor are people able to infringe your rights. No private citizen could ever force another to not own a firearm. So, the government saying that you must pay to take a class is not the same as a private citizen saying you have to pay to buy a gun from them.

Firethorn:vanbiber874: I'm assuming by school shooting teams you mean armed officers in schools.

Going by context it's a sports team of students, not 'armed officers'. Remember, shooting is an Olympic Sport, so it's not necessarily out of line for a school to have a shooting team. Going by history and the Olympics, their most likely weapon would be single shot .22lr rifles.

I am not arguing whether or not shooting is a sport, but the importance of keeping public schools safe and gun free is higher than having a shooting team, just because you really really want one.

vanbiber874: The level of burden for properly educating students is high enough without the added responsibility of including a firearms course on safe sex or driving.

Does this still hold true? Personally, I think that there should be a 'general safety' course in school. SexEd may or may not make sense in it(crosses over into health/biology type classes), but driver's ed would. I'd also cover poisons, electricity, gas, flammable chemicals, monoxide, first aid, how to fight a fire, etc... Firearm safety would probably be 1/2-1 hour of instruction in the whole class.

No, because safe sex education is different than learning how to use a gun (insert penis joke here). Just because I believe that students should not be taught how to use a gun in school doesn't mean that should hold true for other sometimes controversial subjects. People are allowed to have different opinions on different topics. Many of these safety suggestions are covered in science labs/physical education courses. That type of safety education is much different than learning how to use a deadly weapon.

Zasteva:I don't really have a problem with people owning firearms, or using them for hunting or even self defense. I have a problem with the attitude exhibited by people who are unwilling to subject their ownership and use of firearms to the same kind of time, place and manner restrictions that are used for other other civil rights, such as freedom of speech or assembly, and instead insist on a right to bear arms with zero oversight or regulation.

What exactly are you required to do before you're allowed any exercise of your freedom of speech? Was there a speech class you had to take, with a test at the end before you got your license to speak?

People are already legally prohibited from firing guns off recklessly, from shooting inside city limits, from using guns to commit murder, from using them in a threatening manner, from annoying neighbors by shooting in the middle of the night, etc, etc.

Those are exactly the kind of restrictions we also have on speech. Being unable to shout fire in a crowded theater is not the same as having to get training and pass a test in order to publish a newsletter or talk politics around the water cooler.

Click Click D'oh:StaleCoffee: So explain to me the difference between goods and services here, if you're a private citizen forcing people to pay for those services in the same vein that someone forces people to pay for their goods.

If the government is not supplying free weapons, ammunition and training - hey Military folks, respect to you by the way - and requires remuneration for goods that are constitutionally protected, by what backassward logic do you somehow differentiate that from requisite training?

Okay, let me splain this to you real slow.... If the government requires you to pay for something to exercise a right, that's unconstitutional. See "Poll Tax". If a private citizen requires you to pay for something, it doesn't matter because the Constitution is does not restrict the people, nor are people able to infringe your rights. No private citizen could ever force another to not own a firearm. So, the government saying that you must pay to take a class is not the same as a private citizen saying you have to pay to buy a gun from them.

Well then, like I said to the guy back there, why don't you test out your first amendment right by selling some child porn?

Maybe sell a magazine that splains real slow how to asplode sommat?

See, I can understand the potential dangers of the government exercising too much control over the regulation of, well, anything - but you seem to be adamant in your refusal to understand the potential dangers of zero regulations. The irony that you are an instructor is amusing, though.

I don't think you understand how the Constitution works if you don't realize the difference between the government forcing you to pay to exercise a right and private citizens forcing you to pay for products they've made.

So explain to me the difference between goods and services here, if you're a private citizen forcing people to pay for those services in the same vein that someone forces people to pay for their goods.

If the government is not supplying free weapons, ammunition and training - hey Military folks, respect to you by the way - and requires remuneration for goods that are constitutionally protected, by what backassward logic do you somehow differentiate that from requisite training?

Your statement was that you can't make someone pay to exercise a right, yet there is some kind of transaction required here.

Maybe if we want to simplify the whole thing we can just place regulations and bans on anything that isn't homemade and self-taught. We have a nice constitutionally protected right without any of that messy Talking About Things. Now we can say hooray police state!

What we have got here is a failure to communicate, mostly your HS government teacher apparently. Private transactions are not equal to government action. Just stop this trolling argument. You're embarrassing yourself.

Well if you just want to drop out of the discussion and go back to looking up pictures of horsies on the net you're welcome to go do that.

StaleCoffee:Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: So explain to me the difference between goods and services here, if you're a private citizen forcing people to pay for those services in the same vein that someone forces people to pay for their goods.

If the government is not supplying free weapons, ammunition and training - hey Military folks, respect to you by the way - and requires remuneration for goods that are constitutionally protected, by what backassward logic do you somehow differentiate that from requisite training?

Okay, let me splain this to you real slow.... If the government requires you to pay for something to exercise a right, that's unconstitutional. See "Poll Tax". If a private citizen requires you to pay for something, it doesn't matter because the Constitution is does not restrict the people, nor are people able to infringe your rights. No private citizen could ever force another to not own a firearm. So, the government saying that you must pay to take a class is not the same as a private citizen saying you have to pay to buy a gun from them.

Well then, like I said to the guy back there, why don't you test out your first amendment right by selling some child porn?

Maybe sell a magazine that splains real slow how to asplode sommat?

See, I can understand the potential dangers of the government exercising too much control over the regulation of, well, anything - but you seem to be adamant in your refusal to understand the potential dangers of zero regulations. The irony that you are an instructor is amusing, though.

Which enumerated right has zero regulations? We should probably shore that one up.

StaleCoffee:redmid17: StaleCoffee: redmid17: StaleCoffee: redmid17: Great. That doesn't change the fact your extrapolation was pants on head retarded. If you want a free gun, you can legally manufacture your own.

I don't think you understand how the Constitution works if you don't realize the difference between the government forcing you to pay to exercise a right and private citizens forcing you to pay for products they've made.

So explain to me the difference between goods and services here, if you're a private citizen forcing people to pay for those services in the same vein that someone forces people to pay for their goods.

If the government is not supplying free weapons, ammunition and training - hey Military folks, respect to you by the way - and requires remuneration for goods that are constitutionally protected, by what backassward logic do you somehow differentiate that from requisite training?

Your statement was that you can't make someone pay to exercise a right, yet there is some kind of transaction required here.

Maybe if we want to simplify the whole thing we can just place regulations and bans on anything that isn't homemade and self-taught. We have a nice constitutionally protected right without any of that messy Talking About Things. Now we can say hooray police state!

What we have got here is a failure to communicate, mostly your HS government teacher apparently. Private transactions are not equal to government action. Just stop this trolling argument. You're embarrassing yourself.

Well if you just want to drop out of the discussion and go back to looking up pictures of horsies on the net you're welcome to go do that.

Do you have any substantive point or do you want to keep rambling like someone who just smoked their first joint of college after philosophy class and hit total enlightenment?

redmid17:StaleCoffee: Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: So explain to me the difference between goods and services here, if you're a private citizen forcing people to pay for those services in the same vein that someone forces people to pay for their goods.

If the government is not supplying free weapons, ammunition and training - hey Military folks, respect to you by the way - and requires remuneration for goods that are constitutionally protected, by what backassward logic do you somehow differentiate that from requisite training?

Okay, let me splain this to you real slow.... If the government requires you to pay for something to exercise a right, that's unconstitutional. See "Poll Tax". If a private citizen requires you to pay for something, it doesn't matter because the Constitution is does not restrict the people, nor are people able to infringe your rights. No private citizen could ever force another to not own a firearm. So, the government saying that you must pay to take a class is not the same as a private citizen saying you have to pay to buy a gun from them.

Well then, like I said to the guy back there, why don't you test out your first amendment right by selling some child porn?

Maybe sell a magazine that splains real slow how to asplode sommat?

See, I can understand the potential dangers of the government exercising too much control over the regulation of, well, anything - but you seem to be adamant in your refusal to understand the potential dangers of zero regulations. The irony that you are an instructor is amusing, though.

Which enumerated right has zero regulations? We should probably shore that one up.

Sorry, did you want to continue? I thought you wanted me to stop talking to you.

redmid17:Do you have any substantive point or do you want to keep rambling like someone who just smoked their first joint of college after philosophy class and hit total enlightenment?

Since you haven't contributed anything the last few replies other than to posture I wasn't really bothering to give you anything substantive, but if you want me to I'm sure I could think of something for you to get angry about.

StaleCoffee:redmid17: StaleCoffee: Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: So explain to me the difference between goods and services here, if you're a private citizen forcing people to pay for those services in the same vein that someone forces people to pay for their goods.

If the government is not supplying free weapons, ammunition and training - hey Military folks, respect to you by the way - and requires remuneration for goods that are constitutionally protected, by what backassward logic do you somehow differentiate that from requisite training?

Okay, let me splain this to you real slow.... If the government requires you to pay for something to exercise a right, that's unconstitutional. See "Poll Tax". If a private citizen requires you to pay for something, it doesn't matter because the Constitution is does not restrict the people, nor are people able to infringe your rights. No private citizen could ever force another to not own a firearm. So, the government saying that you must pay to take a class is not the same as a private citizen saying you have to pay to buy a gun from them.

Well then, like I said to the guy back there, why don't you test out your first amendment right by selling some child porn?

Maybe sell a magazine that splains real slow how to asplode sommat?

See, I can understand the potential dangers of the government exercising too much control over the regulation of, well, anything - but you seem to be adamant in your refusal to understand the potential dangers of zero regulations. The irony that you are an instructor is amusing, though.

Which enumerated right has zero regulations? We should probably shore that one up.

Sorry, did you want to continue? I thought you wanted me to stop talking to you.

StaleCoffee:Well then, like I said to the guy back there, why don't you test out your first amendment right by selling some child porn?

Maybe sell a magazine that splains real slow how to asplode sommat?

See, I can understand the potential dangers of the government exercising too much control over the regulation of, well, anything - but you seem to be adamant in your refusal to understand the potential dangers of zero regulations. The irony that you are an instructor is amusing, though.

What kind of prior restraint are we under to preemptively prevent us from creating or distributing child pornography?

Do you need a license to get on the internet? Do you have to pass a background check to buy a camera?

I see, the guy you're responding for is trying to figure out a way to rephrase what he meant so he doesn't have to admit that just maybe it could be in error somehow and to cover for that you're waving a 26 foot epeen my way so I'll salivate at it? Wanna make out? Even though he thinks I'm an idiot I'm sure Click is more than capable of answering for himself (my comment there was sarcasm btw, except the making out part).

StaleCoffee:Even though he thinks I'm an idiot I'm sure Click is more than capable of answering for himself

Sorry, first I had to figure out how the hell you were equating the government putting limits on the exercise of the First Amendment had anything to do with my statement that the Bill of Rights is not incorporated against the people... Actually, I'm still trying to figure that one out....

JesseL:StaleCoffee: Well then, like I said to the guy back there, why don't you test out your first amendment right by selling some child porn?

Maybe sell a magazine that splains real slow how to asplode sommat?

See, I can understand the potential dangers of the government exercising too much control over the regulation of, well, anything - but you seem to be adamant in your refusal to understand the potential dangers of zero regulations. The irony that you are an instructor is amusing, though.

What kind of prior restraint are we under to preemptively prevent us from creating or distributing child pornography?

Do you need a license to get on the internet? Do you have to pass a background check to buy a camera?

Nope! Because cameras and the internet aren't the sole purview of child porn and terror magazines any more than trucks and charcoal are solely about the dissemination and construction of firearms and ammunition. Child porn of any category, however, is illegal regardless of the medium. If you carved a picture of pedobear assaulting an infant into the stock of your rifle, though, I wonder which amendment that would fall under the protection of.

Because Constitutional right, that's why. A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended. Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech. Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

Oh please. Like anyone who wants to own a gun also feels a civic duty to the state or as a means to resist oppression. That argument is quite possibly the most dishonest and insulting excuse involved in this entire mess. The right to keep and bear arms has never been so simple as to own a weapon for self defense alone. Not in the United States, not in the nations or ideals on which that amendment was based, but it's been an amazing spin of politics to turn it into something so stupid as that.

Further, the right to keep and bear arms does not mean without restriction. You want to test your first amendment? Go start a kiddie porn site and a forum for terrorists to blow up a circus.

Some of this shiat should be common sense.

Completely unrestricted? No, of course not -- as you point out, even the comparatively uncontroversial 1st Amendment has its limits -- but it does mean there's a (rightfully) pretty high bar to laws that restrict Constitutional rights.

So:

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

Which is it?

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." (often mis-attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, but a good quote none the less). Basically, this is why yelling "fire" in a theater or making kiddie-porn is illegal: it infringes on other peoples' r ...

StaleCoffee:redmid17: Do you have any substantive point or do you want to keep rambling like someone who just smoked their first joint of college after philosophy class and hit total enlightenment?

Since you haven't contributed anything the last few replies other than to posture I wasn't really bothering to give you anything substantive, but if you want me to I'm sure I could think of something for you to get angry about.

Look if you can't or won't understand the difference between the government not infringing on a right versus actively stifling a right, there is not much else I can do. However for one last attempt:

The 6th amendment guarantees a right to counsel in criminal cases. If you or I go to trial without a lawyer due to lack of funds, then the government is violating our sixth amendment right to counsel. If you have enough money and waive the government's offer of counsel, you are not having your right violated.

The 2nd amendment says the government will not infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. If they don't provide you with a gun, you still have the right to keep and bear arms. I can gift you a shotgun and ammunition, and you have to pay no one. You still retain your right to keep and bear arms.

bigpete53:Please explain how knowing how a firearm works, how to store it properly, and how to handle it safely equate to CCW permit.

Depends on the state, I think. Illinois's proposed 40 hours of training probably covers that stuff a lot due to sheer need to fill up time compared to my permits from North Dakota, Nebraska, or Florida. I had to demonstrate competency for handling and operation in North Dakota and Florida. My hunter safety course handled that stuff more, to be honest.

bigpete53:What is the purpose of a sound suppressor other than to conceal one's actions with a firearm?

How about protecting your hearing and keeping from annoying the neighbors when you target practice? What about hunting closer to inhabited areas(still in a safe manner, of course)?

It might be news to you, but a suppressor doesn't actually silence a firearm. They still tend to be very loud. An awful lot of them only muffle the firearm down to around 80 decibels - just low enough you don't need hearing protection.

Is it possible that your definition of 'rational' doesn't match with theirs? I mean, they're starting from a different set of assumptions, so what's rational to them might be irrational to you and vice versa.

One question of rationality: In California .50BMG rifles are currently considered 'assault weapons', even if it's a single shot bolt action. Do you think this is a rational law?

bigpete53:If you purchase a car without a license, you still can't drive it off the lot.

You can't drive it off the lot onto the public roads, but you can certainly drive it up onto a trailer(the dealer's lot is private property), and have your friend/employee tow it to a privately owned track/area and drive it to your heart's content.

One of the proposed amendments to the original Texas CCW law(it pretty much being the first of the modern CCW movement), proposed range requirements that exceeded all police standards. It failed, but it had broad support until people started chiming in that many police wouldn't be able to pass it - any CCW'er that passed it could be considered more qualified than the police in a shooting situation.

JesseL:I have a hard time understanding why anyone who wants to reduce unnecessary deaths would resist widespread firearms education, but demand it a legal requisite for gun ownership if they didn't plan to use it as a way of infringing on people's rights.

That's the reason I want it to be a class in High School, perhaps even a bit in Elementary(don't touch!) or Jr High.

Click Click D'oh:Because something that runs about $0.01 each is clearly equateable to something that runs $100 - $200 each x 300,000,000 residents....

The call-in system takes about 5 minutes. Operator cost alone for that is probably about $1, even before you figure on the costs of keeping the database they're using to look up. Call it $5-20 per.

Click Click D'oh:If you think someone can be made competent and safe with a firearm in a generalized all in one class

Competent? No. Safe? Probably. Making sure they know where the bullet comes out, and what control to avoid to keep the gun from firing is sufficient in case they come across a strange firearm that they must(for some reason) handle. Otherwise if they're purchasing the seller can(and normally does) cover the relevant operation of that particular firearm.

manimal2878:Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't the 40mm gun shoot a HE shell? I'm betting your cannon and mortar do not do that.

The payload of the artillery piece is not dependent upon the caliber. Explosive shells exist and can be made for his weapons, and date from the 14th century. I'll note that an explosive round WOULD count as a destructive device, with all the relevant permit requirements coming into play in that case. But for muzzle-loading cannon, it's the shot that's regulated(when it's explosive), not the weapon.

vanbiber874:but the importance of keeping public schools safe and gun free is higher than having a shooting team

Is separating school 'safety' and 'gun free' an unintentional insight on your part? Because in the context of school endorsed shooting sports, they are actually separate matters.

A kid smuggling in a firearm to use on another is an issue whether or not there's a shooting team. Heck, a student attempting another harm is an issue, whether he's using a firearm, knife, or even just a school pencil.

vanbiber874:No, because safe sex education is different than learning how to use a gun (insert penis joke here).

Eh, I was approaching it more from a 'safe handling' course rather than a full 'how to use it properly' course; especially considering I was proposing an hour or less, when basic rifle qualification for the military is a 1-2 day course of nothing else(2 days right now for M-4, USAF).

vanbiber874:Many of these safety suggestions are covered in science labs/physical education courses.

Many, not all. Not all students attend science labs in public school. Heck, I'd go so far as to say that most don't.

vanbiber874:That type of safety education is much different than learning how to use a deadly weapon.

Not seeing it. A car can easily be as deadly if you're a dumbass using it as a firearm can.

Click Click D'oh:StaleCoffee: Well then, like I said to the guy back there, why don't you test out your first amendment right by selling some child porn?

And who is going to be arresting me and putting me in jail (infringing my rights), a private citizen or the government?

I honestly don't even know where that turn went, could you explain that? Not sarcasm there.

Click Click D'oh:StaleCoffee: Even though he thinks I'm an idiot I'm sure Click is more than capable of answering for himself

Sorry, first I had to figure out how the hell you were equating the government putting limits on the exercise of the First Amendment had anything to do with my statement that the Bill of Rights is not incorporated against the people... Actually, I'm still trying to figure that one out....

supayoda:2. Can SOME deaths be prevented by stricter gun laws? The answer to that question is a resounding YES. In particular, accidental deaths (particularly to children) in homes where guns are kept would be reduced significantly.

StaleCoffee:I wasn't asking about that. I was asking which is it: your rights do not need explanation or justification and you can exercise them for any reason, or not.

Do you feel that your initial comment was in error then?

If this was actually intended to be a serious question, not just you being willfully obtuse, then I'd reply that the 2nd amendment right to bear arms should be interpreted as broadly as possible, subject to the principle of that quote (that your rights end where other peoples rights begin). Where that exact limit is drawn is -- in our system of divided powers -- a matter for the court system.

...but within the sphere of "arms" that can reasonably be used without obliterating parts of the community (i.e., no nukes, artillery, etc.), the right to own and use them -- by people who have not been convicted of a crime -- should be basically unrestricted. I.e., one should not need to prove that a particular armament has a "sporting" use (or similar) to justify possessing it.

StaleCoffee:JesseL: StaleCoffee: Well then, like I said to the guy back there, why don't you test out your first amendment right by selling some child porn?

Maybe sell a magazine that splains real slow how to asplode sommat?

See, I can understand the potential dangers of the government exercising too much control over the regulation of, well, anything - but you seem to be adamant in your refusal to understand the potential dangers of zero regulations. The irony that you are an instructor is amusing, though.

What kind of prior restraint are we under to preemptively prevent us from creating or distributing child pornography?

Do you need a license to get on the internet? Do you have to pass a background check to buy a camera?

Nope! Because cameras and the internet aren't the sole purview of child porn and terror magazines any more than trucks and charcoal are solely about the dissemination and construction of firearms and ammunition. Child porn of any category, however, is illegal regardless of the medium. If you carved a picture of pedobear assaulting an infant into the stock of your rifle, though, I wonder which amendment that would fall under the protection of.

I have seriously lost track of WTF point you're trying to make and I think perhaps you have too. Tone down the WaRGARBL, take your meds, and try again.

redmid17:StaleCoffee: redmid17: Do you have any substantive point or do you want to keep rambling like someone who just smoked their first joint of college after philosophy class and hit total enlightenment?

Since you haven't contributed anything the last few replies other than to posture I wasn't really bothering to give you anything substantive, but if you want me to I'm sure I could think of something for you to get angry about.

Look if you can't or won't understand the difference between the government not infringing on a right versus actively stifling a right, there is not much else I can do. However for one last attempt:

The 6th amendment guarantees a right to counsel in criminal cases. If you or I go to trial without a lawyer due to lack of funds, then the government is violating our sixth amendment right to counsel. If you have enough money and waive the government's offer of counsel, you are not having your right violated.

The 2nd amendment says the government will not infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. If they don't provide you with a gun, you still have the right to keep and bear arms. I can gift you a shotgun and ammunition, and you have to pay no one. You still retain your right to keep and bear arms.

Honestly I think most of the problem here is that you want to feel hostile towards me because I'm Not On Your Side, despite the fact nobody has asked me outright if I support gun ownership (which I do, btw) or my general position on it.

I understand what you are saying and it makes sense. OTOH there is a cost and regulation involved there. The government is providing legal counsel, but that legal counsel is in good standing with the bar, and did not come that way free. Would you consider it stifling if the government allowed you to represent yourself but did not provide counsel? AFAIK they can force you to reimburse that counsel as well, if you are financially capable of doing so - which is the crux of this topic for me at the moment. The idea that people shouldn't have to pay anything to exercise an "enumerated right" as it were.

Great Janitor:I even support the idea that if a felon even attempts to buy a gun and the background check returns him as a felon

Why can't the felon own firearms? Likewise the dishonorably discharged from the military. Sure, I get that if the person committed some violent crimes, go ahead and take away the gun rights. What about a felony tax evasion or some similar non-violent nerd-crime? How does that rate a loss of firearms rights?

Yes, I know the blanket "felons lose firearms rights" rule is already in effect, I'm just wondering what is the rationale behind it, (I suspect there isn't any).

JesseL:StaleCoffee: JesseL: StaleCoffee: Well then, like I said to the guy back there, why don't you test out your first amendment right by selling some child porn?

Maybe sell a magazine that splains real slow how to asplode sommat?

See, I can understand the potential dangers of the government exercising too much control over the regulation of, well, anything - but you seem to be adamant in your refusal to understand the potential dangers of zero regulations. The irony that you are an instructor is amusing, though.

What kind of prior restraint are we under to preemptively prevent us from creating or distributing child pornography?

Do you need a license to get on the internet? Do you have to pass a background check to buy a camera?

Nope! Because cameras and the internet aren't the sole purview of child porn and terror magazines any more than trucks and charcoal are solely about the dissemination and construction of firearms and ammunition. Child porn of any category, however, is illegal regardless of the medium. If you carved a picture of pedobear assaulting an infant into the stock of your rifle, though, I wonder which amendment that would fall under the protection of.

I have seriously lost track of WTF point you're trying to make and I think perhaps you have too. Tone down the WaRGARBL, take your meds, and try again.

IOW you think cameras and the internet are for child porn and fields and paper targets are for guns, and should be regulated equally or not at all, roger that.

Firethorn:The call-in system takes about 5 minutes. Operator cost alone for that is probably about $1,

Your local FLL needs to start using the computer based system.

Firethorn:Making sure they know where the bullet comes out, and what control to avoid to keep the gun from firing is sufficient in case they come across a strange firearm that they must(for some reason) handle.

They muzzle and the trigger. It's the same for all firearms. No class needed. The owners manual for any firearm covers that.

StaleCoffee:I honestly don't even know where that turn went, could you explain that? Not sarcasm there.

Hell, I don't even know where the turn came from. You are going to have to explain how you mashed up child pron not being protected by the 1st, poll taxes and Bill of Rights not being incorporated against private citizens..

AngryJailhouseFistfark:Great Janitor: I even support the idea that if a felon even attempts to buy a gun and the background check returns him as a felon

Why can't the felon own firearms? Likewise the dishonorably discharged from the military. Sure, I get that if the person committed some violent crimes, go ahead and take away the gun rights. What about a felony tax evasion or some similar non-violent nerd-crime? How does that rate a loss of firearms rights?

Yes, I know the blanket "felons lose firearms rights" rule is already in effect, I'm just wondering what is the rationale behind it, (I suspect there isn't any).

Disenfranchisement of felons is covered under one of the amendments. I won't pretend I know it offhand but it's probably a first page google hit.

neversubmit:If everybody had their own personal force field guns would be obsolete.

it is being worked on... just need the null field to end at some point. is it a set output from the battery, or something else I'm not seeing? Do I need to tie it into something that will sustain the charge or just use that as a grounding point? Do you really need the entire body covered, or can we restrict coverage to the head and torso, leaving the limbs to fend for themselves?

StaleCoffee: I honestly don't even know where that turn went, could you explain that? Not sarcasm there.

Hell, I don't even know where the turn came from. You are going to have to explain how you mashed up child pron not being protected by the 1st, poll taxes and Bill of Rights not being incorporated against private citizens..

StaleCoffee: Are you trying to steer this towards states rights...?

DUFUQ?

You brought up poll taxes and Bill of Rights not being incorporated, not I.

You made the claim that "it doesn't matter because the Constitution is does not restrict the people" - which I contended and provided an example of.

That you went round and round with a bunch of nonsense is your own fault, that I chose to roll along with it is mine.

I'm trying not to assume you're an asshole who just wants to be right but it's really looking that way.

StaleCoffee:redmid17: StaleCoffee: redmid17: Do you have any substantive point or do you want to keep rambling like someone who just smoked their first joint of college after philosophy class and hit total enlightenment?

Since you haven't contributed anything the last few replies other than to posture I wasn't really bothering to give you anything substantive, but if you want me to I'm sure I could think of something for you to get angry about.

Look if you can't or won't understand the difference between the government not infringing on a right versus actively stifling a right, there is not much else I can do. However for one last attempt:

The 6th amendment guarantees a right to counsel in criminal cases. If you or I go to trial without a lawyer due to lack of funds, then the government is violating our sixth amendment right to counsel. If you have enough money and waive the government's offer of counsel, you are not having your right violated.

The 2nd amendment says the government will not infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. If they don't provide you with a gun, you still have the right to keep and bear arms. I can gift you a shotgun and ammunition, and you have to pay no one. You still retain your right to keep and bear arms.

Honestly I think most of the problem here is that you want to feel hostile towards me because I'm Not On Your Side, despite the fact nobody has asked me outright if I support gun ownership (which I do, btw) or my general position on it.

I understand what you are saying and it makes sense. OTOH there is a cost and regulation involved there. The government is providing legal counsel, but that legal counsel is in good standing with the bar, and did not come that way free. Would you consider it stifling if the government allowed you to represent yourself but did not provide counsel? AFAIK they can force you to reimburse that counsel as well, if you are financially capable of doing so - which is the crux of this topic for me at the moment. The ...

All of those questions are irrelevant. The government is guaranteeing you a right to counsel. If you can afford it, they will not give you a public defender. You do reimburse court system for the PD though. You can waive that right and proceed pro se if you prefer. There might be an exception for mentally ill defendants. The PD is also paid to remain in good standing with the bar. If he is disbarred, he cannot remain in his job.

The government does not guarantee you a gun to shoot, just that you can own and shoot one if you want. That's the crux of the issue. There is a reason why there is no direct reference to any scenarios where the government would provide anyone a gun. You'd have a point if the 2nd amendment said:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In military conflicts, foreign and domestic, the people shall enjoy the right to bear arms and have the assistance of the Armory.

AngryJailhouseFistfark:supayoda: 2. Can SOME deaths be prevented by stricter gun laws? The answer to that question is a resounding YES. In particular, accidental deaths (particularly to children) in homes where guns are kept would be reduced significantly.

What law would you propose to prevent these accidental kid-deaths?

And a follow-up, how would you enforce such a law(s)?

I'll take my answer off the air, thank you.

Butting in to your conversation here....

I would start with stuff that has proven to work...like the gun storage/handling laws of Canada. I would start with some of those laws and look into how they inforce them, since they seem to work.

Trance354:neversubmit: If everybody had their own personal force field guns would be obsolete.

it is being worked on... just need the null field to end at some point. is it a set output from the battery, or something else I'm not seeing? Do I need to tie it into something that will sustain the charge or just use that as a grounding point? Do you really need the entire body covered, or can we restrict coverage to the head and torso, leaving the limbs to fend for themselves?

/physics for the win//never surrender, nothing is impossible

If patent #1 is a personal force field, patent #2 is going to be a way to bypass said force field.

StaleCoffee:You made the claim that "it doesn't matter because the Constitution is does not restrict the people" - which I contended and provided an example of.

What part of the Constitution says that you can't have child pron?

There isn't one that I know of.

The Constitution states the rights of the government, then the protected rights of the people. The only crime laid out in the Constitution is Treason. Later laws created the crime of child pron, the Constitution simply does not protect it.

Aldon:AngryJailhouseFistfark: supayoda: 2. Can SOME deaths be prevented by stricter gun laws? The answer to that question is a resounding YES. In particular, accidental deaths (particularly to children) in homes where guns are kept would be reduced significantly.

What law would you propose to prevent these accidental kid-deaths?

And a follow-up, how would you enforce such a law(s)?

I'll take my answer off the air, thank you.

Butting in to your conversation here....

I would start with stuff that has proven to work...like the gun storage/handling laws of Canada. I would start with some of those laws and look into how they inforce them, since they seem to work.

Here is a good place to start, a few of Canada's federal gun safety laws:http://www.ehow.com/list_6700786_canadian-gun-storage-laws.html">htt p://www.ehow.com/list_6700786_canadian-gun-storage-laws.html

Add some of those laws with enforcement with universal background checks and it seems obvious you will save lives without taking away any guns for law abiding and sane citizens.

Gun storage requirements are largely dead for now excepting those with regards to ensuring that children and prohibited persons do not gain access to firearms through negligence. A law will have to be passed, make it up to SCOTUS, be accepted by SCOTUS, and overturn that part of DC v Heller for anything like that to stick.

Firethorn:A lot of gun owners state that they'd LOVE firearms to be 'regulated' the same as cars. Consider that you can trailer a non-street legal car over public roads all you like, assuming the trailer itself is legal.

Carrying a firearm is not the same as operating it. Despite this, I think it reasonable to consider a 'ready to use' firearm about the same as driving a car even if you're not actually shooting it, you're carrying it with reasonable expectation you might end up using it, even if the odds are really low.

Thus, you need a CCW type permit(wording can vary) in order to carry a firearm ready for operation. Unloaded open carry? Same as trailering a non-street legal car. No license? You're restricted to carrying it unloaded, preferably cased, on public property.

I would love it too if firearms were regulated like cars; mandatory licenses, training, registration, and insurance as well as strictly enforced rules on selling and tracking transfered ownership...

redmid17:All of those questions are irrelevant. The government is guaranteeing you a right to counsel. If you can afford it, they will not give you a public defender. You do reimburse court system for the PD though. You can waive that right and proceed pro se if you prefer. There might be an exception for mentally ill defendants. The PD is also paid to remain in good standing with the bar. If he is disbarred, he cannot remain in his job.

Yet the bottom line of this entire discussion was someone claiming the government can't force you to pay to exercise an enumerated right. I'm not arguing that the government should supply people with free guns, I'm contesting that statement.

I am absolutely well aware that you can waive that and not pay a fee, so please don't assume I'm an idiot. That's not the same as the right to legal counsel, since you also have the option to waive your right to keep and bear arms.

The government does not guarantee you a gun to shoot, just that you can own and shoot one if you want. That's the crux of the issue. There is a reason why there is no direct reference to any scenarios where the government would provide anyone a gun. You'd have a point if the 2nd amendment said:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In military conflicts, foreign and domestic, the people shall enjoy the right to bear arms and have the assistance of the Armory.

or something along those lines

You're right, that wasn't anything I was arguing against.

Question: What do you think of the use of militia against the whiskey rebellion? Not looking to trap you in something, honestly curious.

Aldon:Firethorn: A lot of gun owners state that they'd LOVE firearms to be 'regulated' the same as cars. Consider that you can trailer a non-street legal car over public roads all you like, assuming the trailer itself is legal.

Carrying a firearm is not the same as operating it. Despite this, I think it reasonable to consider a 'ready to use' firearm about the same as driving a car even if you're not actually shooting it, you're carrying it with reasonable expectation you might end up using it, even if the odds are really low.

Thus, you need a CCW type permit(wording can vary) in order to carry a firearm ready for operation. Unloaded open carry? Same as trailering a non-street legal car. No license? You're restricted to carrying it unloaded, preferably cased, on public property.

I would love it too if firearms were regulated like cars; mandatory licenses, training, registration, and insurance as well as strictly enforced rules on selling and tracking transfered ownership...

All that stuff only applies if you want to operate the car on public property.

Click Click D'oh:StaleCoffee: You made the claim that "it doesn't matter because the Constitution is does not restrict the people" - which I contended and provided an example of.

What part of the Constitution says that you can't have child pron?

There isn't one that I know of.

The Constitution states the rights of the government, then the protected rights of the people. The only crime laid out in the Constitution is Treason. Later laws created the crime of child pron, the Constitution simply does not protect it.

redmid17:Gun storage requirements are largely dead for now excepting those with regards to ensuring that children and prohibited persons do not gain access to firearms through negligence. A law will have to be passed, make it up to SCOTUS, be accepted by SCOTUS, and overturn that part of DC v Heller for anything like that to stick.

If that is true, it is too bad. Seems like sensible laws that would save lives.

StaleCoffee:Yet the bottom line of this entire discussion was someone claiming the government can't force you to pay to exercise an enumerated right.

Does the court pull the public defender from the case or reverse the trial decision if you fail to pay in the future? In what way does the government remove your right to representation if you don't pay?

vanbiber874:Knee jerk irrational fear? How about all of the school shootings? Zero tolerance rules didn't even start after the first school shootings, it wasn't until after Columbine that most schools adopted no-tolerance. And the simple fact that you freaking brag about keeping a .22 in your trunk during school makes that a very rational fear to have. Keeping guns out of schools should really be a no-brainer. No student should ever bring a gun to school, it doesn't matter what their reason is, schools need to be an absolutely safe environment from any gun violence, and any threat to that safety is unacceptable.

You know they used to have...are you sitting down?...SHOOTING CLUBS IN SCHOOLS. Students would actually carry their rifles in the open on school grounds. And there was never a school shooting. The guns are not to blame and all the idiotic zero-tolerance laws have done absolutely nothing to make kids safer.

StaleCoffee:redmid17: All of those questions are irrelevant. The government is guaranteeing you a right to counsel. If you can afford it, they will not give you a public defender. You do reimburse court system for the PD though. You can waive that right and proceed pro se if you prefer. There might be an exception for mentally ill defendants. The PD is also paid to remain in good standing with the bar. If he is disbarred, he cannot remain in his job.

Yet the bottom line of this entire discussion was someone claiming the government can't force you to pay to exercise an enumerated right. I'm not arguing that the government should supply people with free guns, I'm contesting that statement.

I am absolutely well aware that you can waive that and not pay a fee, so please don't assume I'm an idiot. That's not the same as the right to legal counsel, since you also have the option to waive your right to keep and bear arms.

The government does not guarantee you a gun to shoot, just that you can own and shoot one if you want. That's the crux of the issue. There is a reason why there is no direct reference to any scenarios where the government would provide anyone a gun. You'd have a point if the 2nd amendment said:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In military conflicts, foreign and domestic, the people shall enjoy the right to bear arms and have the assistance of the Armory.

or something along those lines

You're right, that wasn't anything I was arguing against.

Question: What do you think of the use of militia against the whiskey rebellion? Not looking to trap you in something, honestly curious.

I understand why the farmers were pissed. They just help fight a revolution largely of taxation, and the government turns around and triple taxes them. It was a shiat law with good intentions. They shouldn't have rebelled. There was a reason why that tax got repealed and no one was convicted during that whole brouhaha though

Which portion of the Constitution restricts child pron? It's okay. You can say that it's not in there. Don't worry, it's not a shocking revelation to the rest of us that child pron isn't in the Constitution.

Firethorn:The payload of the artillery piece is not dependent upon the caliber. Explosive shells exist and can be made for his weapons, and date from the 14th century. I'll note that an explosive round WOULD count as a destructive device, with all the relevant permit requirements coming into play in that case. But for muzzle-loading cannon, it's the shot that's regulated(when it's explosive), not the weapon.

I'm pretty sure we are talking about THE 40mm gun (the bofurs). Not just anything with a 40mm bore. I don't give a crap about muzzle loading cannons, I didn't bring those up, Dittybopper did.

redmid17:All that stuff only applies if you want to operate the car on public property.

Hmmm, in order to purchase a car the sale and transfer of ownership needs to be recorded. No matter if it is going to be functioning on private property or not (at least in California).

I would have no problem if someone can build their own car or firearm with legal parts and only have it in their property and would have heavy regulations on moving or transferring it to another person or location.